1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NORTH OGDEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 19, 2011 The North Ogden Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting on October 19, 2011 at 6:00 pm in the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 E. 2600 N. North Ogden, Utah. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was furnished to each member of the Planning Commission, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to the Utah State Website on October 14, 2011. Notice of the annual meeting schedule was published in the Standard-Examiner on January 1, 2011. COMMISSIONERS: Dave Hulme Chairman Allan Dalpias Vice-Chairman Joan Brown Steve Quinney Ken Kiser STAFF: Dave Carlson City Attorney/Economic Development Director Craig Barker Community Development Director Gary Kerr Building Official Jennifer Thomas Planning Technician EXCUSED: Cheryl Stoker Blake Knight VISITORS: Bruce Hall REGULAR MEETING Chairman Hulme called the regular meeting to order at 6:00pm. Quinney offered the invocation and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 5, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Planning Commission Meeting 19 October 2011 Page 1
46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Brown moved to approve the minutes of the October 5, 2011 meeting as written. Kiser seconded the motion. Vote as recorded: Dalpias abstain Brown yes Quinney yes Kiser yes 4. CONSIDERATION TO ELECT A CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Hulme said he is resigning from the Planning Commission to fill a temporary slot on the City Council. Kiser asked if he will step back into his Planning Commission role after Council Member Taylor returns from deployment. Hulme replied no. Brown suggested Allan Dalpias take the role as the Planning Commission Chair. Dalpias explained he has reservations taking the position because he recently began a new job. Brown said she cannot carry the position because of personal reasons. Brown commented that Stoker is running for City Council and if she were to be successful then they would have to go through this process again. Brown motioned to elect Ken Kiser as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Quinney seconded the motion. Hulme commented that he has enjoyed his time on the Planning Commission. Kiser said it has been good to have him on the Planning Commission and he hopes Hulme will come back. Voting on the motion: Brown yes Quinney yes Kiser yes Vice Chairman Dalpias yes Mr. Barker reminded the Planning Commission they will hold elections for Chair and Vice Chair at the beginning of each year. Planning Commission Meeting 19 October 2011 Page 2
95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 5. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE A BUILDING PARCEL DESIGNATION LOCATED AT 2548 NORTH 1550 EAST. Mr. Barker congratulated Hulme on his new position. He stated that he and Jennifer Thomas are there to help Kiser in any way. He said he may contact them at any time. Mr. Barker referred the Planning Commission to the picture Bruce Hall provided (attachment A). He explained there is an issue with the recorded temporary turn-around. He explained they use those when there is a need to provide an area for road maintenance equipment to turn-around. He said most of the time they are used for snow plows. Mr. Barker directed the Planning Commission s attention to the dirt road on the left side of the picture. He explained that easement was requested by Lewis Barker. He said the property Mr. Hall wants to purchase extends into the temporary turn-around, but he has provided an agreement stating he will keep the space open. Mr. Barker pointed out the turn-around may not be needed when the road is developed. He discussed the easement granted to Lewis Barker and that Mr. Hall would need to honor that agreement. Mr. Barker explained that the Planning Commission s responsibility is to approve the building parcel designation that will connect the two lots. He explained the lots will be permanently connected and cannot be sold separately. Hulme asked if they are responsible for approving the sale of the land. Mr. Barker replied no, City Council will approve the sale. He said it is a completely separate procedure from the building parcel designation. Hulme said they can approve the building parcel designation with a theoretical lot that would only take effect if the sale goes through. Mr. Barker replied yes and discussed the recording of documents. Hulme asked about the circumstances in which they would deny approval. Mr. Barker said they may have an issue if the turn-around were to become permanent or if there were land issues. He said he is not aware of many circumstances in which they would deny this type of request. Kiser asked the size of the parcel. Mr. Barker replied that it is 7,900 square feet. Kiser asked the size of the entire lot the City owns. Kiser asked if this request goes along with what the City wants to do. Mr. Barker replied yes he said they declared this property surplus. Hulme asked if the interested buyer is aware of this pending sale. Mr. Barker replied to his knowledge the buyer is aware. Bruce Hall, 2548 North 1550 East, said he has lived in North Ogden for over 50 years. Kiser asked if his intent is to landscape the area or if he is required to do so. Mr. Hall said their intent is to continue landscaping. They bought their home in 1994 and were told it Planning Commission Meeting 19 October 2011 Page 3
142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 was a North Ogden easement. He pointed out there is a rock wall in the center of the property. He said they acted as if it was an easement similar to that of a park strip. They planted grass and trees. Their intent is to plant more trees as a wind break from the canyon winds. The reason they are looking at undeveloped land is for the purpose of a buffer for whatever happens to the north. He said they have enjoyed the area. Mr. Hall pointed out that this will benefit the City because it straightens the property. He said since it is only 7,900 square feet you cannot do much with it because it is not big enough. He said he has spoken with staff and the engineer extensively about the turn-around. He said there were suggestions to leave it as is. He said he wants to make it clean and simple. He said he agrees with leaving it unobstructed. He said if he pulled his request back to the east it would leave a small sliver of land when the road goes through. He added that it would be beneficial to everyone if they squared the lot off. Kiser stated the City uses it for a turn-around and asked Mr. Hall if he intends to build a fence in that area. Mr. Hall replied no and stated that is why he wrote the letter of understanding (attachment B). He spoke with Lewis Barker about the marker and asked him not to pull it out. He said Lewis Barker looked at it and has no problems. Kiser motioned to approve the building parcel designation to add 7,900 square feet to 2548 North 1550 East. Brown seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Brown yes Quinney yes Kiser yes Vice Chairman Dalpias yes Mr. Barker explained the purchase will need to be approved by City Council before the Planning Commission s decision is valid. 6. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ACTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO 11-10-28 REGULATING RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES FOR DISABLED PERSONS IN THE NORTH OGDEN CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. There was a discussion on issues other cities and counties have faced when trying to control these types of uses. Dave Carlson said trying to control these types of uses have gotten many cities into trouble. He said these facilities are not very popular in communities, but they rarely cause problems. He said most cities ordinances are not in compliance with federal law. He stated his recommended changes are taken out of the guidelines published by the United States Department of Justice which enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. Planning Commission Meeting 19 October 2011 Page 4
189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 Mr. Carlson said regardless of how you feel about the regulations it is pretty much the way it is. He said there has been a lot of litigation around the country. He said cities have tried various approaches to regulate these facilities but are limited. He said you pretty much have to allow them to be a permitted use. He explained they have to be looked at like any other family in the neighborhood. He explained this is how some people live in society and this is their family. Brown said it was beneficial when the applicant brought the boys in that were going to participating in the program. She said they haven t had any problems with that facility. Kiser asked the nature of their disabilities. Brown said most had behavioral problems. Kiser said item two points out that you do have some control over the categories of disabilities that are allowed. Mr. Carlson said those are the only categories that can be excluded. He said just because those categories are excluded doesn t mean you will not get addicts, sex offenders, or juvenile offenders if they are in the group home for some other reason. He said it cannot be facilities that are targeted for those groups. Kiser said the description juvenile offender is pretty broad. He said the statement regarding sex offenders concerns him. Mr. Carlson pointed out that sex offenders can move into the neighborhood anyway. Kiser asked if they would have to be registered. Mr. Carlson replied yes and it would also apply in this case as well. Kiser said he guesses there is nothing they can do about it. Mr. Carlson said he assumes the companies who sponsor the group home have some responsibility. Mr. Carlson went over the first paragraph. He said you cannot require any supervision for adults living in a group home because you don t require supervision of adults it in normal family homes. Brown asked if the courts have said sex offenders cannot be within a certain distance of a school. Mr. Carlson said sex offenders would have to follow all state laws. Mr. Carlson said you can require supervision of minors. He said in paragraph two he had to take out the proximity restriction. He said federal laws state you do not have to allow group homes that cater to specific populations in the residential areas. Mr. Carlson explained he does have one change in paragraph three. He said Gary Kerr asked if they can include a statement that requires them to follow the American Disability Act (ADA) standards. He said he doesn t think they can do that because they do not require regular single family homes to comply with ADA standards. Brown said they are a business. Mr. Carlson said you have to look at it as if they are a family. Mr. Carlson said businesses have to comply with ADA because they are open to the public and these facilities are not open to the public. Brown asked about family and visitors. Mr. Carlson suggested striking that statement. He said they could include a statement unless it is a group home that provides services to people with physical disabilities. Brown said she doesn t think they should narrow it down. It is not that big of an expense to widen an opening. Mr. Carlson said section C states the Director of Community Development is authorized to make any accommodation. He said maybe they are fine and they can trust Mr. Barker to make Planning Commission Meeting 19 October 2011 Page 5
235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 those determinations. Mr. Carlson stated they received a letter from an applicant stating they do not allow people with physical disabilities in their program because of the strenuous activities. Hulme asked if that is allowed. Brown said they may have someone in the future who wants to build a facility that allows people with physical disabilities so they may need to keep the requirement. Hulme asked if the ADA would require a business to meet their standards. Mr. Carlson replied he doesn t know. Hulme stated they could include a statement that is triggered under those circumstances. He said he doesn t mind the way it is currently worded. Mr. Carlson said that is a good point, because it may not even be implied under this type of facility. Brown said she thinks there ought to be something in there like that. Hulme said they need to make sure Gary Kerr understands they are not making facilities arbitrarily comply with those requirements. Mr. Carlson said they included a statement that allows them 30 days to get their state license. Hulme said it is similar to what they do with child care. Mr. Carlson said they want to avoid causing an impossible situation. Mr. Carlson said paragraph four states you can exclude a person if he or she poses a direct threat. He said you can t categorically determine a person is unsafe before something happens. He said you have to wait until someone engages in a behavior that is a risk to the community then you can force the facility to remove them. Hulme asked who would examine the evidence. Mr. Carlson said it probably would happen because of a police incident. He said the facilities are all licensed by the State of Utah. He said they would probably work through the State to remove the person. Kiser asked if they are categorically excluding them in the first sentence. Mr. Carlson said you have to have clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a threat. Quinney said the company probably already screens the people. Mr. Carlson said there may be a situation you could say you don t want this person there but they would have to have evidence. Mr. Carlson said generally speaking they would have to comply with all of the residential regulations. He said they may even get more favorable treatment than the average family because there may be a provision in the building code that creates an obstacle for them. He said the last paragraph gives the Community Development Director the authority to not enforce particular regulations. He said they need to make these changes to reduce any potential problems for the City. Kiser asked if it will be presented to City Council in this form. Mr. Carlson replied yes. Quinney asked if they are going to make the recommendations created by Mr. Carlson. Kiser asked if it will be presented in this form. Mr. Carlson said leave it the way it is. Brown referred to the ADA regulations and said it doesn t hurt to put it in there on an as needed basis. Mr. Carlson stated that is what the recommendation is. Planning Commission Meeting 19 October 2011 Page 6
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 Brown said she is comfortable with all the recommendations. Quinney said the State will do more about it than they will. Mr. Carlson said that is in the regulation. Hulme said the work is applicable. Brown asked if they are aware of where the new group home will be located. Mr. Carlson said it will be on the next City Council consent agenda. Dalpias motioned to approve the proposed amendment to North Ogden City Zoning Ordinance 11-10-28. Quinney seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Brown yes Quinney yes Kiser yes Vice Chairman Dalpias yes 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS. There were no public comments. Brown discussed the ATV s on roads and wondered if they need to reconsider it. Dalpias said he is contemplating going back to the City Council with it. Hulme said he saw more news trucks and said he thought this is such a great place to live it is sad that the media rarely visit us unless something drastic happens. He said he was at the candlelight vigil and thought this represents the best of the City. He said most of those people don t even know each other. Brown discussed a large trailer sign at Fruitland and Mountain Road. Mr. Barker said they need to check to see if it is in the unincorporated County. He said they will look into it. Mr. Barker said if it is in the county they can t do anything. She said it is advertising Acorn Antiques. Mr. Barker asked if it is parked on the side of the road. Brown said there was a vehicle attached. Mr. Carlson said that is difficult because the City can t violate their first amendment rights. Mr. Barker said there is some county property in that area. 8. ADJOURNMENT. Brown moved to adjourn. Kiser seconded the motion. Planning Commission Meeting 19 October 2011 Page 7
328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 Voting on the motion: Brown yes Quinney yes Kiser yes Dalpias yes The meeting adjourned at 6:53 pm. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Secretary Date approved Planning Commission Meeting 19 October 2011 Page 8